W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:52:31 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200801251052.31519.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

I think, these problems show mainly, that the img element
of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.
There is no relyable method for authors to offer other
alternative formats, if one does not work, therefore in
doubt (If no traditionally supported format like JPEG or PNG), 
they should not use this outdated element anymore to
have some more control about what happens than just
the alt attribute.
However this shows in general the problems of multimedia
element in the current draft with technically superfluous
elements like img or embed and mixing functionality and
naming in an inconsistent or imcomplete way for audio,
video and object.
This complete area looks more like treating the shadows of 
history than some deliberated concept ;o)

Therefore the best approach would be to replace img by
image with the same functionality as object and doing
similar things concerning functionality with video and 
audio to get the same approach as in SMIL - the naming
is only related to semantics, the authors thinks is right,
the functionality is always the same for all of them...
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 10:25:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC